Taxation [discussion]

[Birdy]

In the case of a huge Bitcoin success:
At one point or another the Bitcoin system will crash with the need for a tax to sustain the states.
Maybe we don't agree with a lot of things that are done by them, but we need infrastructure, education, police and so on.
We then will suffer from a lot of tries to control or destroy the bitcoin system, because the states have no other choice to do so.

What if we as Bitcoin community would offer a deal?
We could try to create a fair taxation model and integrate this into the Bitcoin system?
It would make things easier for all of us.

I know it's really difficult to create something that everyone agrees on to be fair.

Keys:
- The tax amount must not be depending on where you live
- It shouldn't be an additional transaction fee, because this would encourage hoarding
- Due to the fact that nobody can see who owns how many wallets/adresses the tax would have to be in % and be applied on every adress.
- It should provide a good chunk of the needed tax of a state
- States shouldn't be able to manipulate it in any way

We would end up in an automated system, that would end all of tax fraud
Everyone except those that try to betray, everyone else would win!


So why should we do this?

We would avoid a lot of conflicts.
Also it's a chance to create a better world, with less betrayal.


Edit:

Oh, great. I thought you were talking about TAXES. You know, where you are coerced to pay an organization that has a monopoly on violence and money, and if you don't, you will be put in a cage by goons with guns.

We're talking about free will. Well, in that case you're just talking about free market cooperation. Why then did you open this thread again?

Free will to cooperate and include this in the client to accomplish a fair and easy regulation, before the states come and force it down on us.
Because when they do, it will be everything but fair and easy.

Maybe they will enforce laws control over the internet, tax fraud is a great excuse to do so.
Maybe they will try to crush Bitcoin by banning the exchanges.
Things like that could be avoided.

[1713878131]

1713878131

[1713878131]

1713878131

[1713878131]

1713878131

[nevafuse]

No thanks.

[Birdy]

No thanks.

Why?
Could you provide some reasoning to this?

You will have to pay taxes one way or another, unless you betray.
So why not approach an open, fair way to do so?

[nevafuse]

No thanks.

Why?
Could you provide some reasoning to this?

You will have to pay taxes one way or another, unless you betray.
So why not approach an open, fair way to do so?

Betray?

Taxation is not the downfall of bitcoin, bitcoin is the downfall of taxation.

[Birdy]

No thanks.

Why?
Could you provide some reasoning to this?

You will have to pay taxes one way or another, unless you betray.
So why not approach an open, fair way to do so?

Betray?

Taxation is not the downfall of bitcoin, bitcoin is the downfall of taxation.

Anarchist, huh?
There are things that the community has to pay for together, if you like it or not.
E.g. I want a country to have schools, because I don't want to live in a world where everybody is stupid.

[tuliplover]

No thanks.

Why?
Could you provide some reasoning to this?

You will have to pay taxes one way or another, unless you betray.
So why not approach an open, fair way to do so?

So if I don't want to get robbed by some criminals, that's betrayal? Gosh, some statists are really heavily indoctrinated.

But yeah, without our wise overlords, we couldn't possibly figure out how to build roads and schools. There's no way, even
if it happened already in the past.

[tuliplover]

No thanks.

Why?
Could you provide some reasoning to this?

You will have to pay taxes one way or another, unless you betray.
So why not approach an open, fair way to do so?

Betray?

Taxation is not the downfall of bitcoin, bitcoin is the downfall of taxation.

Anarchist, huh?
There are things that the community has to pay for together, if you like it or not.
E.g. I want a country to have schools, because I don't want to live in a world where everybody is stupid.

And those who don't agree with your idea of public education, should be put in a cage, right?

[Birdy]

And those who don't agree with your idea of public education, should be put in a cage, right?

You have to pay for public education right now.

So you want Bitcoin to be a model to flee from this?
Public education was an important step for mankind, if you want to go back to the days where 90% of the people didn't had any school.
Then yeah... then I think you are stupid.

[Malawi]

If there were to be a general BTC tax, it would have to be flat and a %.

Still - It would mean that all the countries in the world would have to cooperate, and that is not really likely.
This means that if there ever is implemented some kind of general/global tax on BTC it would be a good thing, because it would also mean that all the nations would be united in a meaningful way.

Even though some seem to think that BTC will replace FIAT currencies, I think they are a tad too optimistic on behalf of BTC. Cryptocurrencies is just a suplement, it will not replace currency under national controls.

[tuliplover]

No thanks.

Why?
Could you provide some reasoning to this?

You will have to pay taxes one way or another, unless you betray.
So why not approach an open, fair way to do so?

So if I don't want to get robbed by some criminals, that's betrayal? Gosh, some statists are really heavily indoctrinated.

But yeah, without our wise overlords, we couldn't possibly figure out how to build roads and schools. There's no way, even
if it happened already in the past.

I'm not saying that the current people in poltics are doing a great job.
But providing a fair taxation model will lessen the abilities for a state and the people in it to rob someone.

How would giving them more money lessen their abilities? You think they would just say "Hey thanks, now we can erase these other taxes"?
Things don't work that way. Btw the only fair tax rate is zero, in my opinion.

[Mistafreeze]

Nope.

[Birdy]

If there were to be a general BTC tax, it would have to be flat and a %.

Still - It would mean that all the countries in the world would have to cooperate, and that is not really likely.
This means that if there ever is implemented some kind of general/global tax on BTC it would be a good thing, because it would also mean that all the nations would be united in a meaningful way.

Even though some seem to think that BTC will replace FIAT currencies, I think they are a tad too optimistic on behalf of BTC. Cryptocurrencies is just a suplement, it will not replace currency under national controls.

A flat amount will not work due to the nature of Bitcoin, so we can only work with %.

The steps to do so wouldn't be that hard.
Once we have agreed on an amount (let's say 10%), we implement the system in all clients. If a majority accepts this change (think of this: We would actually be able to vote how much we want to pay!), the states only need to say yes and can obtain money.

[nevafuse]

No thanks.

Why?
Could you provide some reasoning to this?

You will have to pay taxes one way or another, unless you betray.
So why not approach an open, fair way to do so?

Betray?

Taxation is not the downfall of bitcoin, bitcoin is the downfall of taxation.

Anarchist, huh?
There are things that the community has to pay for together, if you like it or not.
E.g. I want a country to have schools, because I don't want to live in a world where everybody is stupid.

We all have different levels of what we are willing to contribute to support a community.  Some people would rather live alone on their own without having to deal with taxes.  And others would prefer the state of things now.  I don't have a problem with either option, but bitcoin should support both.  Integrating a tax model will only cater to one of those groups.

[Birdy]

How would giving them more money lessen their abilities? You think they would just say "Hey thanks, now we can erase these other taxes"?
Things don't work that way. Btw the only fair tax rate is zero, in my opinion.

The other taxes are erased automatically by switching to Bitcoin, because there are no taxation rules for this yet.
You can also wait until there are taxation rules for Bitcoins, but I don't think it will be better.

[Birdy]

We all have different levels of what we are willing to contribute to support a community.  Some people would rather live alone on their own without having to deal with taxes.  And others would prefer the state of things now.  I don't have a problem with either option, but bitcoin should support both.  Integrating a tax model will only cater to one of those groups.

We essentially are paying for those that are not willing to contribute, so they rob us of money
Unless they are erimits.

I see that a lot of people here are are very ego-centric and it will be very difficult to agree on something.
But there are benefits to gain, if we do.

[tuliplover]

And those who don't agree with your idea of public education, should be put in a cage, right?

You have to pay for public education right now.

So you want Bitcoin to be a model to flee from this?
Public education was an important step for mankind, if you want to go back to the days where 90% of the people didn't had any school.
Then yeah... then I think you are stupid.

Previous robbery is not a justification for future robbery. I thought that was pretty obvious even for a person with public education.
People were less educated in the past because they were poorer, not because private education sucked.
States didn't take over because their way was superior, but because education is the key to control the youth and thus
the whole population over time. And because they could (by force), of course.

Anybody with eyes can see that public education has been a disaster. It's insanely expensive, doesn't give useful skills to the students
(for the most part), and it produces unthinking robots (like you) who are easily manipulated.

[nevafuse]

We all have different levels of what we are willing to contribute to support a community.  Some people would rather live alone on their own without having to deal with taxes.  And others would prefer the state of things now.  I don't have a problem with either option, but bitcoin should support both.  Integrating a tax model will only cater to one of those groups.

We essentially are paying for those that are not willing to contribute, so they rob us of money
Unless they are erimits.

I was basically saying the 2 communities would be separate and mutually exclusive.  Therefore you wouldn't be paying for the people that want to live alone & they wouldn't be able to use your services.  Kinda of like France vs Somalia.  Regardless, good luck supporting this alt chain.  I think very few people would choose an alt chain where random people take money out of their accounts, but to each their own.

[tuliplover]

We all have different levels of what we are willing to contribute to support a community.  Some people would rather live alone on their own without having to deal with taxes.  And others would prefer the state of things now.  I don't have a problem with either option, but bitcoin should support both.  Integrating a tax model will only cater to one of those groups.

We essentially are paying for those that are not willing to contribute, so they rob us of money
Unless they are erimits.

I see that a lot of people here are are very ego-centric and it will be very difficult to agree on something.
But there are benefits to gain, if we do.

So those who don't wish to be robbed are the real robbers. Orwellian doublespeak at its best.

[hiltonizer]

Statist jibber jabber... it's everywhere. BUT WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS??!

If the internet sales tax law shit goes through, bitcoin is going to see one hell of a bump.

[WiW]

Hey Birdy buddy, you sound dumb.

You want a tax, which literally means "let's pool our money together and decide together what to do with it". But you're dumb, about as dumb as a monkey. I don't want to pool my money with a monkey and then negotiate with him what to do with it. What if he wants to eat the money? Or throw it away? Or build bombs?

Screw you, you can take my money from my cold dead hands.


P.S. nothing personal, I don't know you I'm just trying to make a point.

P.S.S. Pro-tip: never assume that new technology has to adapt to old folks like you. Usually new technology presents a new world which is different than the old.

[Birdy]

Previous robbery is not a justification for future robbery. I thought that was pretty obvious even for a person with public education.
People were less educated in the past because they were poorer, not because private education sucked.
States didn't take over because their way was superior, but because education is the key to control the youth and thus
the whole population over time. And because they could (by force), of course.

Anybody with eyes can see that public education has been a disaster. It's insanely expensive, doesn't give useful skills to the students
(for the most part), and it produces unthinking robots (like you) who are easily manipulated.

You are throwing too much stuff into one pot. Just, because people messed up a lot of things in public education doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

I'm thinking a great deal about how we could make the world a better place.
You just want to classify me as unthinking manipulated robot, because you don't care to do so. I think you have a big problem trusting other people (maybe because you were disappointed a lot?).

I was basically saying the 2 communities would be separate and mutually exclusive.  Therefore you wouldn't be paying for the people that want to live alone & they wouldn't be able to use your services.  Kinda of like France vs Somalia.  Regardless, good luck supporting this alt chain.  I think very few people would choose an alt chain where random people take money out of their accounts, but to each their own.

I see, but the world is getting closer together every day. I know people don't want to embrace paying money, but there is no other way.

So those who don't wish to be robbed are the real robbers. Orwellian doublespeak at its best.

Indeed a lot of people think they are the victim/ are just doing what they have the right to do while robbing others. My guess is, you are one of them.

[WiW]

How about a better idea:

If you think we can do things better by pooling our money together, why don't you CONVINCE me that it's worth my (our) money. You know, instead of building the abuse into the system.

If it's really better for everyone, why do you have to do it by force?

[tuliplover]

Hey Birdy buddy, you sound dumb.

You want a tax, which literally means "let's pool our money together and decide together what to do with it". But you're dumb, about as dumb as a monkey. I don't want to pool my money with a monkey and then negotiate with him what to do with it. What if he wants to eat the money? Or throw it away? Or build bombs?

Screw you, you can take my money from my cold dead hands.


P.S. nothing personal, I don't know you I'm just trying to make a point.

P.S.S. Pro-tip: never assume that new technology has to adapt to old folks like you. Usually new technology presents a new world which is different than the old.

Come on dude, that first P.S. was really unnecessary.

[Birdy]

Hey Birdy buddy, you sound dumb.

You want a tax, which literally means "let's pool our money together and decide together what to do with it". But you're dumb, about as dumb as a monkey. I don't want to pool my money with a monkey and then negotiate with him what to do with it. What if he wants to eat the money? Or throw it away? Or build bombs?

Screw you, you can take my money from my cold dead hands.


P.S. nothing personal, I don't know you I'm just trying to make a point.

P.S.S. Pro-tip: never assume that new technology has to adapt to old folks like you. Usually new technology presents a new world which is different than the old.

I was expecting a lot of resistance to this idea, but I didn't expect that amount of hate.

States do exist for a reason, because you are stronger, if you are not alone.
Despite all the negative things happening in those we still have states, because there is some benefit to it.

I'm not an "old folk" btw.

[hiltonizer]

Just, because people messed up a lot of things in public education doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Correct, it's a bad idea all on its own.

I'm thinking a great deal about how we could make the world a better place.

Good for you, now make it a better place with your money. Leave mine out of your schemes.

I see, but the world is getting closer together every day. I know people don't want to embrace paying money, but there is no other way.

Just because you don't know of/don't like any other way doesn't make this statement true.

Indeed a lot of people think they are the victim/ are just doing what they have the right to do while robbing others. My guess is, you are one of them.

Says the guy who wants our money to fund his ideas.

[tuliplover]

I'm thinking a great deal about how we could make the world a better place.
You just want to classify me as unthinking manipulated robot, because you don't care to do so. I think you have a big problem trusting other people (maybe because you were disappointed a lot?).

If you really want to make the world a better place then advocating more coercion and calling others stupid is not the best way to start.

[Birdy]

If it's really better for everyone, why do you have to do it by force?

What is this force you are talking about? Never mentioned one.
I'm talking about doing this out of free will.

But there will be a force coming for us, if we try to use Bitcoin as tax escape.

Says the guy who wants our money to fund his ideas.

Why do you assume I want your money with his idea?
I don't want a personal gain from this, I want a gain for everybody.

If you really want to make the world a better place then advocating more coercion and calling others stupid is not the best way to start.

Please reread the topic and count the insults towards me and the insults I have used.

[hiltonizer]

But there will be a force coming for us, if we try to use Bitcoin as tax escape.

Says the guy who wants our money to fund his ideas.

Why do you assume I want your money with his idea?
I don't want a personal gain from this, I want a gain for everybody.

You want the state to get my money, you advocate for the state, you feel that you benefit by the states existence. Therefore, you would personally gain from this.

[Mike Christ]

You are throwing too much stuff into one pot. Just, because people messed up a lot of things in public education doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

On the matter of public education: I'm going to assume you're from the west and/or live in a capitalistic society.

I believe we can both agree that monopolies are bad, yes?  Fall in quality, rise in price.  Assuming the state is an entity, like any other individual or company, why would it be appealing for the government to own almost every school?  Wouldn't different schools competing for the same prospective students aim to improve their quality of education at a reasonable price, as opposed to everyone paying for the same schools (whether or not you attend them, go to private schools, or home school,) owned by the same entity, providing a similar service without worry of losing customers (students.)

We can compare the quality of state-owned schools to privately-owned colleges to draw a conclusion.  I don't have data at hand, but, in my personal experience, my local high school was a death trap of bullies, avoiding the ghetto, and studying for the TAKS test (a state test) more than studying stuff that actually mattered.  If you can't afford private education or a parent who can stay at home to teach you, you are coerced into going to the state school; it's involuntary, and students, on average, suffer.  OTOH, my local college provides a phenomenal service and the professors are all marvelous; compared to high school, even my worst professors would've made good HS teachers.  It's a safe environment with a lot of nice folk (excluding this weird trend of shooting up schools we're having lately.)

Thus, I believe the question becomes, "How could the average person afford private schools?"  But then we must go into another topic; the quality of an individual's career.  Assuming people are continuing to work for near minimum wages, state schools appear to be a must.  Everything's interlinked and related, and it's a tricky subject, that of taxes.  It pretty much boils down to a dependency on government due to the removal of certain liberties (for whatever reason, but I'll assume they're all a form of, "It's for your safety/own good.")

[Birdy]

You are throwing too much stuff into one pot. Just, because people messed up a lot of things in public education doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

On the matter of public education: I'm going to assume you're from the west and/or live in a capitalistic society.

I believe we can both agree that monopolies are bad, yes?  Fall in quality, rise in price.  Assuming the state is an entity, like any other individual or company, why would it be appealing for the government to own almost every school?  Wouldn't different schools competing for the same prospective students aim to improve their quality of education at a reasonable price, as opposed to everyone paying for the same schools (whether or not you attend them, go to private schools, or home school,) owned by the same entity, providing a similar service without worry of losing customers (students.)

We can compare the quality of state-owned schools to privately-owned colleges to draw a conclusion.  I don't have data at hand, but, in my personal experience, my local high school was a death trap of bullies, avoiding the ghetto, and studying for the TAKS test (a state test) more than studying stuff that actually mattered.  If you can't afford private education or a parent who can stay at home to teach you, you are coerced into going to the state school; it's involuntary, and students, on average, suffer.  OTOH, my local college provides a phenomenal service and the professors are all marvelous; compared to high school, even my worst professors would've made good HS teachers.  It's a safe environment with a lot of nice folk (excluding this weird trend of shooting up schools we're having lately.)

Thus, I believe the question becomes, "How could the average person afford private schools?"  But then we must go into another topic; the quality of an individual's career.  Assuming people are continuing to work for near minimum wages, state schools appear to be a must.  Everything's interlinked and related, and it's a tricky subject, that of taxes.  It pretty much boils down to a dependency on government due to the removal of certain liberties (for whatever reason, but I'll assume they're all a form of, "It's for your safety/own good.")

Thank you for doing the first good answer instead of random insults and populist slogans.
I know it's not that easy, there are a lot of things that are bad about states, if there is another solution to those problems I would be fine with it.
States are the current form of the world, if we would try to throw this in disarray there will be a lot of blood.
That's why I'm thinking about solutions to avoid that.

[Traktion]

Voting is just mob rule. It's a majority imposing their will on a minority. As I heard elsewhere, it is the original 51% attack!

Anything desirable can be achieved through voluntary association. If people want it, they will pursue it.

If it helps, think of the state as a big cooperative, with a non-voluntary subscription model. Just change the latter to voluntary and let people figure things out for themselves (over time).

[nikkisnowe]

If bitcoin were to rise to the level that taxes were being affected, there would simply be more ammunition to impose a VAT taxation structure.  More emphasis would be placed on such a sales tax system and more emphasis would be placed on businesses to comply with the tax system.  The bitcoin community doesn't need to make any form of concession regarding taxation.  It's not their place.  Business will still be required to file taxes accordingly.  
While some in this forum argue that businesses will simply fail to comply since they retain bitcoin themselves, I doubt any real businesses going to risk an audit and subsequent penalties associated with it.  

[Traktion]

Hey Birdy buddy, you sound dumb.

You want a tax, which literally means "let's pool our money together and decide together what to do with it". But you're dumb, about as dumb as a monkey. I don't want to pool my money with a monkey and then negotiate with him what to do with it. What if he wants to eat the money? Or throw it away? Or build bombs?

Screw you, you can take my money from my cold dead hands.


P.S. nothing personal, I don't know you I'm just trying to make a point.

P.S.S. Pro-tip: never assume that new technology has to adapt to old folks like you. Usually new technology presents a new world which is different than the old.

I was expecting a lot of resistance to this idea, but I didn't expect that amount of hate.

States do exist for a reason, because you are stronger, if you are not alone.
Despite all the negative things happening in those we still have states, because there is some benefit to it.

I'm not an "old folk" btw.

You don't have to be alone without a state. If you want strength in numbers, then freely associate with many others.

[Birdy]

If bitcoin were to rise to the level that taxes were being affected, there would simply be more ammunition to impose a VAT taxation structure.  More emphasis would be placed on such a sales tax system and more emphasis would be placed on businesses to comply with the tax system.  The bitcoin community doesn't need to make any form of concession regarding taxation.  It's not their place.  Business will still be required to file taxes accordingly.  
While some in this forum argue that businesses will simply fail to comply since they retain bitcoin themselves, I doubt any real businesses going to risk an audit and subsequent penalties associated with it.  

I guess this could happen, it just would be so much easier to include it in the system.
Less unnecessary work -> more work that can be done on other things.

You don't have to be alone without a state. If you want strength in numbers, then freely associate with many others.

Yes, but most those groups have some kind of taxation, unless they don't have to spend money. Yearly payment to be in there and those things.


Glad we are back to discussing instead of hating.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Calm down guys. "Bitcoin & Taxes" problem can't be solved by democratic way, someone has to decide and force the others.

<spam>Btw, here about cryptocurrencies and taxes - http://qubic.boards.net/thread/6/solution-biggest-disadvantage-bitcoin</spam>

[Birdy]

Calm down guys. "Bitcoin & Taxes" problem can't be solved by democratic way, someone has to decide and force the others.

Sadly, I think you right.
We would be better off, if we could change that.

Even a democracy needs to force the minority though. No way to avoid this.

Taxation is not the downfall of bitcoin, bitcoin is the downfall of taxation.

But when I read lines like this, I get the feeling we are in for a lot of this force...
I just hope Bitcoin will survive it.

[WiW]

If it's really better for everyone, why do you have to do it by force?

What is this force you are talking about? Never mentioned one.
I'm talking about doing this out of free will.

Oh, great. I thought you were talking about TAXES. You know, where you are coerced to pay an organization that has a monopoly on violence and money, and if you don't you will be put in a cage by goons with guns.

We're talking about free will. Well, in that case you're just talking about free market cooperation.

Why then did you open this thread again?

[Birdy]

If it's really better for everyone, why do you have to do it by force?

What is this force you are talking about? Never mentioned one.
I'm talking about doing this out of free will.

Oh, great. I thought you were talking about TAXES. You know, where you are coerced to pay an organization that has a monopoly on violence and money, and if you don't, you will be put in a cage by goons with guns.

We're talking about free will. Well, in that case you're just talking about free market cooperation. Why then did you open this thread again?

Free will to cooperate and include this in the client to accomplish a fair and easy regulation, before the states come and force it down on us.
Because when they do, it will be everything but fair and easy.

Maybe they will enforce laws control over the internet, tax fraud is a great excuse to do so.
Maybe they will try to crush Bitcoin by banning the exchanges.
Things like that could be avoided.

[WiW]

Free will to cooperate and include this in the client to accomplish a fair and easy regulation, before the states come and force it down on us.
Because when they do, it will be everything but fair and easy.

Maybe they will enforce laws control over the internet, tax fraud is a great excuse to do so.
Maybe they will try to crush Bitcoin by banning the exchanges.
Things like that could be avoided.

So you're saying we can bluff the state? We'll design our own tax system to be fair (remove the monopoly of money from the state) and they'll just be all like "Oh, it's okay, they're already collecting taxes and it's not us. We'll just step aside then..."

The state will fight for their abusive monopoly on money either way, so I say if you want my money to work on a public school or road, convince me that it's for my own good and I'll cooperate. How about we start off by developing 3D printed weapons and taking away the monopoly of violence from the state?

I have no intention of cooperating with terrorists and so I am not open to any discussions of system-wide abuse and theft. Drop the name taxes and call it kickstarter and you'll have a better chance of getting people on board.

[Birdy]

So you're saying we can bluff the state? We'll design our own tax system to be fair (remove the monopoly of money from the state) and they'll just be all like "Oh, it's okay, they're already collecting taxes and it's not us. We'll just step aside then..."

The state will fight for their abusive monopoly on money either way, so I say if you want my money to work on a public school or road, convince me that it's for my own good and I'll cooperate. How about we start off by developing 3D printed weapons and taking away the monopoly of violence from the state?

I have no intention of cooperating with terrorists and so I am not open to any discussions of system-wide abuse and theft. Drop the name taxes and call it kickstarter and you'll have a better chance of getting people on board.

It's not about bluffing them, it's about cooperating instead of fighting.
Sure we could fight, but do we really want a war?

If USA and Russia shared your opinion, we would have a nuclear wasteland right now.

[WiW]

It's not about bluffing them, it's about cooperating instead of fighting.
Sure we could fight, but do we really want a war?

If USA and Russia shared your opinion, we would have a nuclear wasteland right now.

Again, cooperating means taxing by force. I understand you love this monopoly on money which supports the monopoly on violence. But when we're talking about a system that allows you to escape that (bitcoin), you're making a pretty weak argument (let others make decisions with your money). The government can and WILL try to choke bitcoin, but of the two I'm pretty sure math will win gunpowder.

All wars are funded by taxes. Every single one. So please don't go talking about nuclear wastelands.

[Birdy]

It's not about bluffing them, it's about cooperating instead of fighting.
Sure we could fight, but do we really want a war?

If USA and Russia shared your opinion, we would have a nuclear wasteland right now.

Again, cooperating means taxing by force. I understand you love this monopoly on money which supports the monopoly on violence. But when we're talking about a system that allows you to escape that (bitcoin), you're making a pretty weak argument (let others make decisions with your money). The government can and WILL try to choke bitcoin, but of the two I'm pretty sure math will win gunpowder.

All wars are funded by taxes. Every single one. So please don't go talking about nuclear wastelands.

It's so easy to just put all the fault on the evil states.

I'm not a supporter of states per se, but I cannot see anarchy doing a good job for humanity.

[WiW]

It's so easy to just put all the fault on the evil states.

I'm not a supporter of states per se, but I cannot see anarchy doing a good job for humanity.

So what are you gonna do about it? Force me to live under democracy? Sounds like a better job for humanity.

Ladies and gentlemen: Rationale no. 1 for coercion and use of force.
"You don't want my rules? You don't know what's good for you. I will force rules on you to make this world better for you!"

[WiW]

Ultimately it's a very simple concept. Either you:
1) Decide what's good for others, and forcefully apply such life on them (violence)
2) Don't (non violence)

I prefer to never pick 1. You're saying "Well, 2 will never work so let's pick 1", or in other words "Well, good will never work so let's pick evil."

If you're gonna pick evil, you better have a REALLY GOOD excuse for it, or else I'm gonna put you in the same basket along with warmongers and violent criminals. The onus of proof is on you. Prove to me that the violence you're applying is less than would otherwise occur and you'll be off the hook. Meanwhile, I'll be sitting here not applying violence on anyone.

[Birdy]

It's so easy to just put all the fault on the evil states.

I'm not a supporter of states per se, but I cannot see anarchy doing a good job for humanity.

So what are you gonna do about it? Force me to live under democracy? Sounds like a better job for humanity.

Ladies and gentlemen: Rationale no. 1 for coercion and use of force.
"You don't want my rules? You don't know what's good for you. I will force rules on you to make this world better for you!"

Present a concept that will not do this and will not end up in chaos.
Total freedom may seem like a good thing, but it's illusionary.
If you want to do something that's an adavantage for you, but an disadvantage for the other one, the stronger one will win.
That's not freedom at all, if you think about it.

[tuliplover]

Ultimately it's a very simple concept. Either you:
1) Decide what's good for others, and forcefully apply such life on them (violence)
2) Don't (non violence)

I prefer to never pick 1. You're saying "Well, 2 will never work so let's pick 1", or in other words "Well, good will never work so let's pick evil."

Except that statists think that forcing others to do something can be a good thing. And resisting that is bad.
They just want to make the world a better place, but you always get in the way. Maybe we should put you in a cage,
that would teach you how to behave.

[WiW]

It's so easy to just put all the fault on the evil states.

I'm not a supporter of states per se, but I cannot see anarchy doing a good job for humanity.

So what are you gonna do about it? Force me to live under democracy? Sounds like a better job for humanity.

Ladies and gentlemen: Rationale no. 1 for coercion and use of force.
"You don't want my rules? You don't know what's good for you. I will force rules on you to make this world better for you!"

Present a concept that will not do this and will not end up in chaos.
Total freedom may seem like a good thing, but it's illusionary.
If you want to do something that's an adavantage for you, but an disadvantage for the other one, the stronger one will win.
That's not freedom at all, if you think about it.

I don't believe in total freedom. I believe that a person can either be violent or non violent. If someone wants to make a decision to be violent in order to prevent more violence in the future, they are being violent. I simply wish to not be violent and I will resist any attempt of violence by others. You now fall under the category of violent people.

[Birdy]

I don't believe in total freedom. I believe that a person can either be violent or non violent. If someone wants to make a decision to be violent in order to prevent more violence in the future, they are being violent. I simply wish to not be violent and I will resist any attempt of violence by others. You now fall under the category of violent people.

The world is not black and white.

If someone wants to make a decision to be violent in order to prevent more violence in the future

If I knew for certain it would do this, yes I would. But it's really easy to just think that you would know this, so I really do dislike the option.

But I appreciate that you want to be non-violent at all costs.

[Wilikon]

And those who don't agree with your idea of public education, should be put in a cage, right?

You have to pay for public education right now.

So you want Bitcoin to be a model to flee from this?
Public education was an important step for mankind, if you want to go back to the days where 90% of the people didn't had any school.
Then yeah... then I think you are stupid.

I came here to find smart people and here we go again. Calling names etc is not too smart, but you would not know any better...

[WiW]

The world is not black and white.

Exactly. Considering how unclear the situation is, the decision to be violent to prevent more violence sounds like a bad idea to me. It's like saying "I don't know if I will cause more or less violence but I'm gonna be violent any way, fuck it..."

[Hawker]

It's so easy to just put all the fault on the evil states.

I'm not a supporter of states per se, but I cannot see anarchy doing a good job for humanity.

So what are you gonna do about it? Force me to live under democracy? Sounds like a better job for humanity.

Ladies and gentlemen: Rationale no. 1 for coercion and use of force.
"You don't want my rules? You don't know what's good for you. I will force rules on you to make this world better for you!"

States existed before your grandparents were born and will continue to exist long after your grandchildren have passed away.  Surely you are better off debating how you want to have the state run?

[Come-from-Beyond]

States existed before your grandparents were born and will continue to exist long after your grandchildren have passed away.

Are. You. Sure?

[Birdy]

I came here to find smart people and here we go again. Calling names etc is not too smart, but you would not know any better...

Yes, tell me more about this, please.
I think I got the bigger share of insults heading towards me.

Hey Birdy buddy, you sound dumb.[...]  But you're dumb, about as dumb as a monkey.

and it produces unthinking robots (like you) who are easily manipulated.

[Hawker]

States existed before your grandparents were born and will continue to exist long after your grandchildren have passed away.

Are. You. Sure?

OK - you got me - I assumed he would have grandchildren.  

States have existed for 100s of years and will exist in 100s of years time if humanity is still around.

[franky1]

when most governments are selling public services such as healthcare, emergency services (police/fire/etc) to private companies, there becomes less and less need for taxes.. NOT MORE.

[hiltonizer]

States have destroyed free and stateless societies for 100s of years and will continue to do so fpr 100s of years time if we allow it.

ftfy.

[Hawker]

when most governments are selling public services such as healthcare, emergency services (police/fire/etc) to private companies, there becomes less and less need for taxes.. NOT MORE.

Taxation for public services is the cheapest way of financing them.  Look at the US health system for an example of what happens when you have to create huge bureaucratic billing systems and compare it to the NHS.

[Hawker]

States have destroyed free and stateless societies for 100s of years and will continue to do so fpr 100s of years time if we allow it.

ftfy.

Um - http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Read it.  Stateless societies have existed and were indeed destroyed by states.  My country, Ireland, was one of them. The important thing is to understand why it was inevitable and why they won't be coming back.

[hiltonizer]

States have destroyed free and stateless societies for 100s of years and will continue to do so fpr 100s of years time if we allow it.

ftfy.

Um - http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Read it.  Stateless societies have existed and were indeed destroyed by states.  My country, Ireland, was one of them. The important thing is to understand why it was inevitable and why they won't be coming back.

Care to make a concise point rather than simply link to the work of another?

I personally believe in a minarchist state rather than anarchy/anaracho capitalism, but even while being a state I don't believe a night watchman state has to violate the NAP.

[Hawker]

States have destroyed free and stateless societies for 100s of years and will continue to do so fpr 100s of years time if we allow it.

ftfy.

Um - http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Read it.  Stateless societies have existed and were indeed destroyed by states.  My country, Ireland, was one of them. The important thing is to understand why it was inevitable and why they won't be coming back.

Care to make a concise point rather than simply link to the work of another?

I personally believe in a minarchist state rather than anarchy/anaracho capitalism, but even while being a state I don't believe a night watchman state has to violate the NAP.

If you believe that collecting taxes can be done without violating the NAP, then thats fine.

[Birdy]

Minarchist states will run down the planet in no time by pollution and ressource waste.
Where will you buy the next one?

(Our current system is doing this, too. But this would be even worse)

[hiltonizer]

If you believe that collecting taxes can be done without violating the NAP, then thats fine.

Actually I do, fee based taxation. Pay-as-you-use. Also promotes competition. Guilty pay for courts, those bringing dropped charges pay for bringing false charges. Counter-aggressive confiscation. Etc.

Minarchist states will run down the planet in no time by pollution and ressource waste.
Where will you buy the next one?

(Our current system is doing this, too. But this would be even worse)

  You don't quite get it, do you?

How's fracking working out for you in this fascist state? The smog fog of Red Beijing? Neither would last too long in a night watchman state.

[Birdy]

  You don't quite get it, do you?

How's fracking working out for you in this fascist state? Wouldn't happen in a night watchman state.

What exactly would hinder it from happening?

[Wilikon]

I came here to find smart people and here we go again. Calling names etc is not too smart, but you would not know any better...

Yes, tell me more about this, please.
I think I got the bigger share of insults heading towards me.

Hey Birdy buddy, you sound dumb.[...]  But you're dumb, about as dumb as a monkey.

and it produces unthinking robots (like you) who are easily manipulated.

Listen. Maybe your heart is in right place but if you can, please come visit my hood in the Bronx one day and see what the state taxes does when "it" needs to never lose power. Pretty sad what planned destruction from a State can do and have people voting over and over for their own annihilation. You are spending your time on a bitcoin forum so expect people like myself to be suspicious about what exactly you are trying to say and what solutions you have, news ideas to advance the project.
I am not against taxes as long as there will be a public record of where MY money goes exactly. Something like a part of bitcoin would be cool: public. No need to pay for teachers grading themselves "Super Amazing" 90% of the time in places like Chicago etc. It is a fucking disgrace to know that 60% + of black women are aborting in NYC and failing 80% of the time in their amazing great school system. If i were a proud member of storm front I would vote for the building of a church dedicate to Saint Margaret Sanger. This is where the US taxes are going today: to finish up the job.
So you see I am not against you, but I may be against a way to keep the status quo and keep all the people the States is supposed to help, but keep in darkness to get rid of them quickly, in 3 generations or less.

It is not personal of course.

Bitcoin has very bright people behind it and should make the concept of taxes in itself sounds like a relic from the dark ages. Please contribute to the future and let's move on from the past and this sad present time.

[Hawker]

If you believe that collecting taxes can be done without violating the NAP, then thats fine.

Actually I do, fee based taxation. Pay-as-you-use. Also promotes competition. Guilty pay for courts, those bringing dropped charges pay for bringing false charges. Counter-aggressive confiscation. Etc.

...snip...

No - that's selling services.  Taxation is where you insist that the person pays whether they want the nightwatchman or not.

[Birdy]

Listen. Maybe your heart is in right place but if you can, please come visit my hood in the Bronx one day and see what the state taxes does when "it" needs to never lose power. Pretty sad what planned destruction from a State can do and have people voting over and over for their own annihilation. You are spending your time on a bitcoin forum so expect people like myself to be suspicious about what exactly you are trying to say and what solutions you have, news ideas to advance the project.
I am not against taxes as long as there will be a public record of where MY money goes exactly. Something like a part of bitcoin would be cool: public. No need to pay for teachers grading themselves "Super Amazing" 90% of the time in places like Chicago etc. It is a fucking disgrace to know that 60% + of black women are aborting in NYC and failing 80% of the time in their amazing great school system. If i were a proud member of storm front I would vote for the building of a church dedicate to Saint Margaret Sanger. This is where the US taxes are going today: to finish up the job.
So you see I am not against you, but I may be against a way to keep the status quo and keep all the people the States is supposed to help, but keep in darkness to get rid of them quickly, in 3 generations or less.

It is not personal of course.

Bitcoin has very bright people behind it and should make the concept of taxes in itself sounds like a relic from the dark ages. Please contribute to the future and let's move on from the past and this sad present time.

I'm afraid that's quite far away, I'm not from The US.
I can see where your view is coming from, I fully support your wish of a public record where this money is spent.

While I think there is need for some kind of tax and state, the money should go into good education, environment protection, infrastructure and all this.
There should be no need to hide where the money is going.

[hiltonizer]

What exactly would hinder it from happening?

The same way its supposed to work now. Law suits and counter-aggression... but governments are too corrupt to enforce it. The first guy to have his tap water set fire should have all but owned that fracking company.

No - that's selling services.  Taxation is where you insist that the person pays whether they want the nightwatchman or not.

Tomato Tomata. If you look at from the stand point of the government being nothing more than a DRO of last resort, I suppose your right. My method however would solve some of the issues of child abuse and those who refuse to arbitrate.

[Hawker]

...snip...

No - that's selling services.  Taxation is where you insist that the person pays whether they want the nightwatchman or not.

Tomato Tomata. If you look at from the stand point of the government being nothing more than a DRO of last resort, I suppose your right. My method however would solve some of the issues of child abuse and those who refuse to arbitrate.

The key thing is coercion.  If you don't have that, you don't have your nightwatchman state.  If you do, then its just a question of how big the state should be.

[Valle]

Why current system when you pay income tax on realized gains + sales tax doesn't fit there?

[Malawi]

States have destroyed free and stateless societies for 100s of years and will continue to do so fpr 100s of years time if we allow it.

ftfy.

Um - http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Read it.  Stateless societies have existed and were indeed destroyed by states.  My country, Ireland, was one of them. The important thing is to understand why it was inevitable and why they won't be coming back.

Then you probably know that Iceland was very early in forming a democracy and laws. IOW-building a modern state. Before that there were small kings and owners of large farms etc. that ruled the land. Or as Samuel Jackson would have said at that time - "I pitty the fool who has to rent his land".

[World]

http://news.yahoo.com/internet-sales-tax-could-mean-bitcoin-stash-141540407--politics.html

[Mike Christ]

http://news.yahoo.com/internet-sales-tax-could-mean-bitcoin-stash-141540407--politics.html

Random nitpick, and I'm sure there's an answer to it somewhere: I still don't get why corporations have their skyscrapers in the government's meat pie.  Aren't businesses supposed to do business stuff, like providing goods and services?  What does the faceless, abstract entity that is Amazon have to do with human affairs?  Is it the owner who is in favor of Internet sales tax?  Is it the employees?  I don't get it.  Is Amazon supposed to have an official political standing point, and who decides it?

[Wilikon]

States have destroyed free and stateless societies for 100s of years and will continue to do so fpr 100s of years time if we allow it.

ftfy.

Um - http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Read it.  Stateless societies have existed and were indeed destroyed by states.  My country, Ireland, was one of them. The important thing is to understand why it was inevitable and why they won't be coming back.

Then you probably know that Iceland was very early in forming a democracy and laws. IOW-building a modern state. Before that there were small kings and owners of large farms etc. that ruled the land. Or as Samuel Jackson would have said at that time - "I pitty the fool who has to rent his land".

Mister T... 

[virginiallorca]

Yes taxes are a hassle. I am converting some BTC to cash and not sure how I am going to deal with tax consequences.

[Hawker]

http://news.yahoo.com/internet-sales-tax-could-mean-bitcoin-stash-141540407--politics.html

Random nitpick, and I'm sure there's an answer to it somewhere: I still don't get why corporations have their skyscrapers in the government's meat pie.  Aren't businesses supposed to do business stuff, like providing goods and services?  What does the faceless, abstract entity that is Amazon have to do with human affairs?  Is it the owner who is in favor of Internet sales tax?  Is it the employees?  I don't get it.  Is Amazon supposed to have an official political standing point, and who decides it?

At one point, Internet sales taxes would have hampered Amazon and it lobbied to prevent it.

Right now, Amazon has a unique infrastructure that means it can handle an Internet sales tax.  But a new competitor would not be able to handle it from day 1 so it creates a barrier to entry to Amazon's market.

By a strange co-incidence, Amazon now is all for an Internet sales tax.  Go figure...

[hiltonizer]

http://news.yahoo.com/internet-sales-tax-could-mean-bitcoin-stash-141540407--politics.html

Random nitpick, and I'm sure there's an answer to it somewhere: I still don't get why corporations have their skyscrapers in the government's meat pie.  Aren't businesses supposed to do business stuff, like providing goods and services?  What does the faceless, abstract entity that is Amazon have to do with human affairs?  Is it the owner who is in favor of Internet sales tax?  Is it the employees?  I don't get it.  Is Amazon supposed to have an official political standing point, and who decides it?

Drug companies for example spend somewhere to the tune of $9 out of every $10 on regulatory BS... you won't find a bigger fan of those requirements than big pharma.

[myrkul]

It's so easy to just put all the fault on the evil states.

I'm not a supporter of states per se, but I cannot see anarchy doing a good job for humanity.

So what are you gonna do about it? Force me to live under democracy? Sounds like a better job for humanity.

Ladies and gentlemen: Rationale no. 1 for coercion and use of force.
"You don't want my rules? You don't know what's good for you. I will force rules on you to make this world better for you!"

Present a concept that will not do this and will not end up in chaos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

[Malawi]

Then you probably know that Iceland was very early in forming a democracy and laws. IOW-building a modern state. Before that there were small kings and owners of large farms etc. that ruled the land. Or as Samuel Jackson would have said at that time - "I pitty the fool who has to rent his land".

Mister T... 

Damn, wrong guy.

[liberty90]

Anarchist, huh?
There are things that the community has to pay for together, if you like it or not.

Land Value Tax, real estate taxes...
No income or sales taxes necessary.

In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.[38]

(not that I support any involuntary taxation)

[Walter Rothbard]

What if we as Bitcoin community would offer a deal?
We could try to create a fair taxation model and integrate this into the Bitcoin system?

Bitcoin already has a fair taxation model:
You keep your money and contribute only to causes you believe in.

That's the only fair taxation model in the world.

[Walter Rothbard]

We would end up in an automated system, that would end all of tax fraud

Why would you want to end tax fraud?  Tax fraud is the moral equivalent of Rosa Parks sitting in the "whites only" section of the bus, defying the law.  We should not try to help those who oppress our neighbors.

[myrkul]

What if we as Bitcoin community would offer a deal?
We could try to create a fair taxation model and integrate this into the Bitcoin system?

Bitcoin already has a fair taxation model:
You keep your money and contribute only to causes you believe in.

That's the only fair taxation model in the world.

But that's not a taxa... oh.

[Walter Rothbard]

E.g. I want a country to have schools, because I don't want to live in a world where everybody is stupid.

Why should everybody else have to give you what you want?  People should work for what they want.

If I want a world without drugs and gambling, does that give me the right to engage in the criminal, immoral act of prohibiting drug use and gambling?

We are not toddlers and are old enough to understand that merely wanting something does not obligate the world to give it to us.

[myrkul]

We are not toddlers and are old enough to understand that merely wanting something does not obligate the world to give it to us.

Well, maybe not all. A moderately famous author tweeted to me once "I want free healthcare, and I'm going to bitch 'til I get it!"

[Birdy]

I think you get me wrong on one term, it's not that I clinge to the current system with it's tax. (It just happens to be the system that is established since a long time, so improving this is the most simple way)

If you are able to create a system that
- is able to provide proper education for everyone
- keeps up all necessary infrastructure
- doesn't cast aside people just because they are old, born in the wrong family etc.
- is able to fight crime
- is able to provide proper healthcare
- can work environmentally sustainable
...just to name a few

Then great, go ahead!
A lot of the current states are not doing the best job, I can agree.
But as far as I can see there was never a single successful state using your ideals before. The internet (and also Bitcoin) gives new possibilties, but you will have to proof your concepts, if you ever want to win people's trust to your ideas.

Discrediting and blaming the current system is easy, doing it better is very very difficult.

[myrkul]

Discrediting and blaming the current system is easy, doing it better is very very difficult.

Agreed. How long does a nation need to survive before you consider it "successful?"

[Mike Christ]

Then great, go ahead!
A lot of the current states are not doing the best job, I can agree.
But as far as I can see there was never a single successful state using your ideals before. The internet (and also Bitcoin) gives new possibilties, but you will have to proof your concepts, if you ever want to win people's trust to your ideas.

Discrediting and blaming the current system is easy, doing it better is very very difficult.

That's just it; we couldn't if we wanted to.  There's no place on this planet in which the state does not creep.  The only place I can think of currently is Somalia, but I predict, if they improve enough, and enough people leave to go live there, they'll get tossed around by some country's government or another and a state will be installed against people's will, until they tire themselves out and finally accept whichever country decides to take over.

That's why we need people to understand why the alternative is better.  To change the status quo, we need people.  No individual can begin a society.  Not a hundred people.  Not a thousand people.  It takes a large effort, and to uproot the state, you need a huge amount of people, a nation's worth, all on the same page, all educated to a point where the state is unnecessary.  As long as state proponents outweigh state opponents, there's not a lot of choice in the matter.  That's the point.  That's the state.  There's no choice in the matter.

[Walter Rothbard]

But as far as I can see there was never a single successful state using your ideals before. The internet (and also Bitcoin) gives new possibilties, but you will have to proof your concepts, if you ever want to win people's trust to your ideas.

I don't care if you trust my ideas or not.  Neither one of us has the right to force the other to live by his ideas.

This is like saying Rosa Parks has to prove blacks are as good as whites before she can sit where she wants in the bus, and browbeating her for "blaming the current system."

Discrediting and blaming the current system is easy, doing it better is very very difficult.

Doesn't matter if the "current system" is credited or blamed; doesn't matter if any system is "better" or not.  What matters is consent.  I don't.

[Walter Rothbard]

But as far as I can see there was never a single successful state using your ideals before.

Is it okay if I don't want gangs to succeed?